Scientific facts do not exist

[Into the Night]

"The God is a Person Principle"

There is a always a personality behind the scene:
"The God is a Person Principle"
(or "Why Atheistic Philosophers can't deny that there is always a personality behind the scene"):

Q. Who is the personification of the American Dollar Bill?
A. George Washington.

A dollar bill was never a President of the United States. A picture is not the person.

Q. Who is the Living Personification of the American Dollar Bill?
A. Donald Trump.

Trump's image is not used on any denomination of currency.

Q. Who is the personification of the State of New York'?
A. The Governor (Mr. Cuomo)

What about the people that voted against Cuomo?

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many regional Counties of New York State?
A. The County Executive.

What about the people that voted against him?

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many Congressional Districts of New York State?
A. The Congressman/State Representative.

What about the people that voted against him?

Q. Who is the personification of New York City?
A. The Mayor (Mr. Deblasio).

What about the person that voted against him?

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many Districts of New York City?
A. The Councilman/Ombudsman.

What about the person that voted against him?

Q. Who is the personification of any 'Block and Lot' tax-parcel of land?
A. The title barer (The Land owner).

You can't built a house on a title bearer.

Q. Who is the personification of the any Apartment building?
A. "The Landlord".

What about abandoned apartment buildings (no landlord)?

Q. Who is the personification of any apartment?
A. The tenant.

What about vacant apartments?

Q. Who is the personification of the room with the football and the many toy Trains?
A. One of the male children.

What about girls that like trains? There ARE female train engineers, you know.

Q. Who is the personification of nursery room?
A. The Baby.

What if the baby isn't in the room?

The point of my illustration is:
"Without the presence of the persona, all paraphernalia is without meaning nor purpose for existing"

Best regards,

Bhaktajan

Nursery rooms and apartments exist without tenants in them or babies in them, yet they are still called apartments and nursery rooms.

 

[Into the Night]

In other words, if the planned result of the process is successful then it becomes recognized as fact through the success of a formula thus no longer a scientific process to find out the result.

Science isn't a process or a method. It is not a formula either.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah yeah, desperately scrambling to make irrelevant rhetoric the issue perhaps because you have not one valid example of scientific fact because none exists.

FYI, I am no atheist, I am primary factual fundamentalist

An unusual religion, and one that you can't even seem to define. Oddly enough, one can worship something they can't define'.

 

[archives]

This thread is too funny, got to love the way "nighty" dissects everything down into fragments and then philosophizes generalities, beautiful, wasn't it Plato who characterized sophists as "superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic?"

 

[StoneByStone]

Science isn't a process or a method. It is not a formula either.

You're the dumbest person on this forum.

 

[Scut Farkus]

is science a process for creating facts?

 

[Scut Farkus]

I really need my answer.

 

[MAGA MAN]

I stick with genuine meaning of fact, not false garbage used by imbeciles to replace valid definition.

OK Boomer.

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

is science a process for creating facts?

Sometimes. Other times it is just discovering what always was, such as the reaction noted when particles combine for example. You go right ahead and ask away Hat

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

I really need my answer.

That is also a basic answer Hat. Intellect leads to what I call secondary nature. Things that wouldn't naturally occur without an intelligent being to make them occur.

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

is science a process for creating facts?

Science is a process which gives rise to more likely hypotheses than any others, which are de facto 'facts' until other convincing hypotheses are raised. surely?

 

[Into the Night]

is science a process for creating facts?

No. It is not a process at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not any fact.

 

[Into the Night]

Sometimes. Other times it is just discovering what always was, such as the reaction noted when particles combine for example. You go right ahead and ask away Hat

No. Science isn't facts. It isn't observations either. All observations are subject to the problems if phenomenology.

Science is just a set of theories. Falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

Science is a process which gives rise to more likely hypotheses than any others, which are de facto 'facts' until other convincing hypotheses are raised. surely?

No. Theories do not come out hypothesis. Hypothesis come out of theories. An example is the null hypothesis, used to test a theory of science. No theory is ever proven True.

 

[Scut Farkus]

No. It is not a process at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not any fact.

eh. im going with its a process, that does have to do with facts, sometimes.

this whole thread seems retarded tho.

why this need to separate facts from science. just seems gay and sets off my bullshit-dar.

 

[Into the Night]

eh. im going with its a process, that does have to do with facts, sometimes.

this whole thread seems retarded tho.

why this need to separate facts from science. just seems gay and sets off my bullshit-dar.

People try to assume that theories of science are somehow proven True. No theory is ever proven True, not even a theory of science. They often use the word 'fact' as a proof (it's not) or as a Universal Truth (it's not). You will find they also tend they try to use data as a proof (it's not).

 

[bhaktajan]

Science is not a 'procedure' or a 'method'. It is not a formula. It is not an invention. It is not repetitious experiments. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.

I disagree [for argument sake here]

The use of the following term [I think] shows my idea.
"They got it down to a science"

 

[bhaktajan]

"They got it down to a science"

Baking Bread is a science.

 

[Into the Night]

I disagree [for argument sake here]

The use of the following term [I think] shows my idea.
"They got it down to a science"

A misleading phrase. Science isn't a routine, or process, or a method. These concepts stem from Francis Bacon's philosophies about science. They are wrong.

Science does not use supporting evidence at all. There is no set procedure to science. Science isn't a verb. It is a noun.

Science is nothing more than a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.